Asia Pacific Journal of Education

ISSN: 0218-8791 (Print) 1742-6855 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cape20

Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of

teacher experiences

Kala S. Retna

To cite this article: Kala S. Retna (2015): Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of teacher
experiences, Asia Pacific Journal of Education, DOI: 10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

Published online: 06 Feb 2015.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 87

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cape20

Download by: [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] Date: 27 January 2016, At: 13:29
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 2015
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02188791.2015.1005049

Thinking about “design thinking”: a study of teacher experiences

Kala S. Retna*

School of Management, Victoria University of Wellington, Wellington, New Zealand

(Received 26 September 2013; accepted 14 July 2014)

Schools are continuously looking for new ways of enhancing student learning to equip
students with skills that would enable them to cope with twenty-first century demands.
One promising approach focuses on design thinking. This study examines teacher’s
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

perceptions, experiences and challenges faced in adopting design thinking. There is a

lack of empirical research on the adoption and implementation of the design thinking
process in educational context from the teachers’ point of view. This paper fills this gap
and also provides insight on a recent initiative adopted in Singapore schools. Qualitative
case study research was carried out in a school using teacher narratives. Data includes
in-depth face-to-face interviews and participant observation. The findings show that
teachers perceive that design thinking holds the potential for enhancing skills such as
creativity, problem solving, communication and team work as well as empower students
to develop empathy for others within and beyond the community. The research also
highlighted several challenges such as inadequate resources, time constraints, fear of
poor grades and the difficulty of shifting to a new way of teaching and learning that
differs vastly from the traditional approach. The findings reveal that a piecemeal
approach towards curriculum redesign for adopting design thinking may not provide the
desired outcomes.
Keywords: design thinking; teachers; school; pedagogy; curriculum

Introduction
Over the years, organizations have proactively sought and embraced strategies and
techniques that put them in a good stead to compete in the changing, globalizing,
digitalized world (Fraser, 2007; Stegall, 2006). “Design thinking” is considered as one of
the most promising ways of transforming organizations and businesses in a competitive
environment (Gloppen, 2009). Though design thinking has a long history in the fields of
architecture and engineering, over the last two decades several organizations outside the
field of design, such as those in education and information technology, have attempted to
understand how designers think and work and, as a result, have understood its value (Bell,
2008; Brown, 2009; Kimbell, 2011; Martin, 2009). Using a case study of a public school in
Singapore, this research seeks to understand the perception that teachers have of design
thinking and its implementation. Singapore provides an excellent context to study the
implementation of design thinking since its educational system is centrally-structured and
coherent. Singapore is also an early adopter of new initiatives, so this case study can
provide useful insights into the practical implementation of design thinking. Last but not
least, Singapore shares attributes and challenges with a wide range of countries, but its
differences are readily identifiable. Accordingly, it provides a microcosm from which
lessons can be drawn.

*Email: kala.retna@vuw.ac.nz

q 2015 National Institute of Education, Singapore

 2 K.S. Retna

Different types of design practice have spawned across various sectors and it is now
considered an effective way for organizations to provide excellent products and services
(for example see, Parker & Heapy, 2006; Verganti, 2009). In focusing on the educational
context, several studies have been interested in the educational benefits for students when
schools adopt design thinking (Philloton & Miller, 2011). Yet, there has been less
examination of teachers’ experience and perspectives in implementing design thinking,
whether in a specific subject or in the overall curriculum. Teachers are key players in
education as they are directly involved in adopting and implementing the process of design
thinking in the classroom. Accordingly, this study examines to understand the perceptions
that teachers have of design thinking including its benefits and challenges in Singapore’s
context. The findings show that teachers perceive that design thinking holds the potential
for enhancing skills such as creativity, problem solving, communication and team work as
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

well as empower students to develop empathy for others within and beyond the
community.
The paper is structured as follows. First an overview of the literature on design
thinking and its application in non-design organizations is provided. This is followed by a
discussion of design thinking in schools, specifically the literature on its benefits for
students. Subsequently, the paper outlines the methodology followed by the findings.
Altogether, the study demonstrates that the implementation of design thinking in schools
has both its benefits and its challenges.

Literature on design thinking and organization

The interest in design thinking for non-design organizations can be attributed to researchers
(Rittle & Webber, 1973; Simon, 1973) who identified strategies used in design to address
“ill-structured” problems. Particularly, design strategies that helped detect ill-structured
problems were used to initiate changes in organizations. Designs that permeated through
the nineteenth and twentieth century was based on enhancing material environment.
However, the twenty-first century saw a paradigm shift from material to human aspects
(user experiences and relationships). This shift of mindset to understand and interact with
various stakeholders in the process of creating products or service was evident in various
sectors such as law, health and education. The on-going interaction between end users
(customers) and those involved in the production of goods and services underlies the
essence of design thinking. Argyris and Schon (1978) claim that all actions by people is
design. Related to this note, it is evident that design thinking is not a new concept
(Lockwood, 2009; Wong, 2011). It has been around from the time design was used by
engineers and architects. However, it was David Kelly, the founder of IDEO and Stanford’s
“d.school”, who popularized design thinking in the business and education context
(McCullagh, 2010; Gloppen, 2009).
The development of design thinking has been attributed to management publications
such as the The Art of Innovation, The Tipping Point, A Whole New Mind and Creative
Confidence. These books have served as stepping stones for understanding the basic
principles and application of design thinking. Yet, why is there a resurgence of interest in
design thinking even though it has been in existence for many decades? It is evident from
the literature that the important theme in the emerging interest in design thinking is its
claim of being a new way of thinking that is underpinned by the humanistic approach
towards generating new ideas, services and products. This is because, historically,
designers’ involvement was very much directed towards packaging, that is, they did not
have much engagement or contribution towards the creation of products. Nevertheless,
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 3

design played a crucial role in market growth, especially in the electronics and consumer
packaged industries. Not only did design make new products attractive through advertisement
and communication, it was considered to be a competitive asset by businesses.
However, this situation changed towards the later part of the twentieth century when the
role of design changed from one that made developed products attractive to one that created
new ideas for products and services. It required a fundamental shift from seeing design
as just “styling” to one of the core “activity”, crucial across all sectors and to the economy
(Lee, 2011). One of the key aspects in this change-over was that of paying specific
attention to human needs, the need of users of products or services. In order to do this, several
theorists (for example, Martin, 2009) have put some processes in place that focus on customer
needs.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Defining design thinking

Design thinking is interpreted by theorists in various ways. Lockwood (2009) refers to
design thinking as an application of using designers’ sensibility and methods on problem
solving. He has emphasized that design thinking must be viewed as a methodology and not
a substitute for the professional craft of designing (2009, p. xi). Moreover, it is a way to
explore the unmet needs of customers and to come up with new solutions. According to
Liedtka (2011), design thinking is a process that requires continuous redesigning of a
business, taking customers’ views and insights into consideration. It is basically an
approach in examining the process and the business model of innovation (p. 13). Simon
(1996) defined design thinking as the changing of existing conditions to preferred ones.
This is explained as using designers’ way of thinking and methods to create new ideas or
alternatives to meet the stakeholders’ needs. Here the essence of design thinking is
considered to be abductive reasoning, not deductive or inductive alone. Moreover, he
distinguishes traditional management thinking from design thinking in that the latter needs
specifically three skills: cognitive, affective, and interpersonal. Furthermore, the main
argument against traditional management thinking is the attitude of treating “constraints”
as a barrier for implementation. He does caution users of design thinking that it is a
rigorous process but a good pathway for approaching problems (Simon, 1996). According
to Pink (2005), design thinking is a frame of mind for problem solving that is essential for
the “conceptual age” where creativity and innovation are key contributors to higher
productivity. Last but not least, Martin (2012) defines design thinking as one that involves
both analytical and intuitive thinking.
The definitions above show that design thinking requires a distinct way of approaching
and solving problems that entails a systematic process in order to achieve the desired
outcomes. Understanding and meeting the users’ needs, a different way of thinking and
innovation are the perceived outcomes of design thinking. Based on these definitions,
innovation can take place in many forms such as service, product, behavioural and
organizational culture through the practice of design thinking. Altogether, design thinking
can be regarded as a thoughtful process and organizations could benefit from using design
thinking to stay ahead in a competitive environment (Clark & Smith, 2008).

Design thinking in schools

Schools are continually looking for new ways of enhancing student learning and equipping
students with skills that would enable them to cope with twenty-first century demands.
One particularly promising approach is to utilize design thinking. Proponents argue that
 4 K.S. Retna

students must be nurtured to think like designers (particularly those who are involved in
doing project-based work in schools), as it will enhance creativity among students and
help them understand the process of innovation (Brown, 2008; Martin, 2009).
Clearly few pedagogical ideas are completely new or unique, and many aspects of
design thinking echo concepts that have been advocated over the past century, particularly
in the constructivist perspective. Maria Montessori, with her emphasis on student-centred
discovery of knowledge, would have recognized an affinity with this approach. For
instance, the Urban Montessori Charter School in Oakland, California, explicitly utilizes
design thinking (http://www.urbanmontessori.org/design_thinking). There are also
similarities with the problem-solving approach that was espoused by the educational
theorist John Dewey (1910). According to Dewey, students learned most effectively by
doing and the concept of experience plays an important role in learning (Dewey, 1938).
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Dewey’s concept of problem-solving is still popular and is used in schools in project work.
However, Dewey’s work has been critiqued for abstractness of its recommendations on
assessing performance. Design thinking surmounts the abstractness problem by being a
human-centred process that offers opportunities for concrete recommendations for
complex problems (Scheer, Noweski, & Meinel, 2012). It promotes the learning of social
skills and solving problems to meet the “needs” of people. The focus is on people, and
their articulated problems requiring solutions, rather than on abstract problems that exist
independently of the social milieu.
According to Anderson (2012), design thinking skills are important for future
workplaces in terms of innovative contributions. Increasingly, schools are adopting design
thinking into their curricula and therefore understanding the distinct experiences of
teachers becomes important. Research has shown that using design thinking as the basis
for a pedagogical framework in schools is reaping positive benefits. Barseghian (2010)
reported such work in North Carolina and stated that design thinking offers an “antidote”
to the traditional method of teaching that is practised in most district schools. The practice
of design thinking has achieved significant improvements in terms of overall students
qualifying for state standards (Philloton & Miller, 2011). In another example, Krieger
(2010) has successfully introduced design thinking in schools in India and Mexico. Some
schools have used design thinking in specific subjects like science (Kolodner et al., 2003),
mathematics (Goldman, Knudsen, & Latvala, 1998), technology (Kafai & Resnick, 1996)
and religious studies (Tan & Wong, 2012). These studies have indicated that design
thinking has the potential to enhance skills such as creativity and problem solving which
also help students to build on their cognitive and social skills (Todd, 1999). These studies
have reported on the educational benefits for students, but there has been less examination
of teachers’ experiences and perspectives in implementing design thinking. This study
seeks to understand the perceptions of teachers in understanding design thinking and its
benefits and challenges in the educational context.

Method
The main aim of this study was to understand teachers’ perceptions of using design
thinking as an approach to teaching. For teachers in this study, design thinking was a new
concept or a new teaching strategy aimed at enhancing creativity among students. Since
detailed experiences in a particular context were important for understanding teachers’
perceptions and the challenges they faced, a case study approach was undertaken. Case
study research is viewed as an important form of qualitative inquiry in qualitative research
(Cassell & Symon, 1994) that enables thick description and interpretation (Denzin &
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 5

Lincoln, 2000; Stake, 1995). According to Eisenhardt (1989) a case study should be used
when little is known about the phenomenon. This approach allowed for multiple sources of
information such as interviews, observations and documents for data collection and
analysis (Creswell, 2007). Stake (2000, p. 448) aptly summarized “the purpose of a case
report is not to represent the world, but to represent the case”. Hence, the truth claims are
limited to generating new insights.
A Singapore school provides an interesting and internationally relevant case study of
the implementation of design thinking because Singapore in general is an early adopter of
organizational developments (Retna & Ng, 2006). Moreover, education is highly prized
and schools are very competitive (Luo, Luo, Paris, & Hogan, 2011). This means that
schools in Singapore are more liable than those in most other countries to seize upon new
initiatives and implement them vigorously in order to differentiate themselves from the
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

competition. The case organization in this research is a public secondary school in

Singapore that has implemented design thinking for two years. The students are in
secondary one and two classes, and are aged between 13 and 14 years.
Semi-structured interviews were the primary source of data collection in this study
which aimed to explore the perceptions, views and opinions in a “natural language”
(Easterby-Smith, Thorpe, & Jackson, 2007, p. 142). Furthermore, qualitative interviews
enable one to not only gain an understanding of participants’ perspectives but also to
explore the reasons or rationales for their specific viewpoints on particular issues (King,
2004). Face-to-face interviews lasting approximately an hour each were conducted with
16 teachers at the school. The interviews allowed reflection on participants’ experiences of
being trained in the design process and how it shaped their teaching in the classroom.
An interview guide derived from the literature and from the objectives of the study was
used to gather information about their viewpoints on three key areas. Firstly, they were
asked about their understanding of the design thinking initiative and the importance of it in
schools. For example, questions included: What do you understand of Design Thinking?
Why is it important to integrate it in your teaching? This was followed by questions of
their involvement in the initiative and the types of processes that were introduced in the
school. The final question asked about the benefits and challenges faced in using design
thinking for teaching and learning.
All interviews were recorded and transcribed. Besides these interviews, I also attended
students’ presentations on projects that involved design thinking. These sessions
added more insights to the inquiry. Audio visual material that captured the school’s vision
and design thinking initiatives were made available by the school and they contributed
to the analysis. The transcripts were read closely and the main themes were identified.
This was followed by the coding process: categorizing, sorting data, separating,
labelling and also adding the notes taken during the interviews, student informal
conversations and school brochures/audio visual material on design thinking in the school.
The data from the various sources were analysed using Constas’ (1992) category process
development approach which focuses on the combination of views from literature and
the study.

Findings and discussions

In the following sections a number of issues are discussed. These include teachers’
perceptions and understanding of design thinking, and their experience in integrating it
into some subjects. In addition, the benefits, such as creativity and developing empathy
within and beyond the community, are explored as are some of the challenges, such as
 6 K.S. Retna

resource and time constraints, and the difficulty in shifting from the traditional to a new
way of teaching and learning.

Educators’ interpretation of design thinking

Since design thinking originated in traditional design, it has gained currency among
different professional disciplines as an approach to deal with problems (Brooks, 2010). So,
it is important to clarify what it means when it is adopted in a discipline that differs from
its origination. This is because different professions are inclined to view or interpret things
according to how they make sense of it (Goodwin, 1994). As such, it was important to
identify in this research how educators define design thinking in a school context. The
discussion on their understanding of design thinking indicated a general understanding by
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

all the participants. Design thinking was characterized as a process that enables students to
solve problems, generate creative ideas and come up with solutions that meet the needs of
people. The core message they communicated was that design thinking was a humanistic
approach of solving problems. Though their responses did not carry a cohesive definition,
they included the core elements of design thinking and its process. This does not come as a
surprise as there is yet no consensus among academics and business writers on a clear
definition (Lawson, 2006; Lockwood, 2009; Martin, 2009). Overall, the findings suggest
that the majority of the teachers had some formal knowledge of design thinking before
they used it in the classroom, having been trained by design thinking experts at Stanford
University. Subsequently, they attended several in-house training sessions that enabled
them to integrate design thinking into their curriculum and teaching. However, there were
strong indications from all participants throughout the interviews that design thinking is a
“unique” and a “different” approach compared to the usual teaching practices. The
following quote is an example of a typical interpretation of design thinking from a
participant:
Design thinking is a process that helps us to be more mindful of people’s needs and to come up
with solutions that really help to meet their needs. It is a powerful process because it teaches
us to understand peoples’ feeling about things they need and value.
Other teachers expressed their thoughts on design thinking in a way that resonates with
the emphasis on needs and feelings in the above comment:
It is a process. It involves five phases: empathy, define, ideate, prototype and test. I like the
‘empathy’ part of the process because it teaches us to link to other peoples’ needs and realities.
It is good for our students because it makes them think about what other people need.
Basically it has a lot to do with phases. It is not a text book kind of approach. It connects
students to ‘real’ people. Students learn the true meaning of understanding other peoples’
needs through the empathy phase.
Most of the participants in this research emphasized and repeated the word “empathy”
throughout the interviews as they felt that students in general have been nurtured to think
for themselves. Though “empathy” is only one of the steps involved in the design thinking
process, teachers and students found this specific aspect very beneficial for the
development of skills that is important for personal growth. This is supported by key
proponents; for example, Anderson (2012, p. 46) claims that design thinking helps to
foster empathy and a “deeper understanding” of others (Brown, 2008; McDonagh &
Thomas, 2010). Along this line of thought, there were strong statements by some
participants who expressed their concern that students in this “generation” represent an
“‘I’ thinking culture”, “it is always me first” and “everything is about me”. This suggests
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 7

that one of the reasons behind teachers’ attraction to “empathy” is the intention to effect
behavioural changes among students.

Design thinking versus traditional thinking

Design thinking requires integrative thinking (Martin, 2009). This includes both mindset
and specific techniques and skills that nurture creative thinking. The driver behind
introducing design thinking in the school was summed up by a participant as “to change
our students’ mindset of traditional thinking”. A number of participants pointed out that
the twenty-first century needs different ways of thinking and skills for students to cope
with future demands, and so the school wanted to address the challenge through design
thinking, as explained by one of the senior teachers:
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Design thinking offers skills for our students to meet twenty-first century skills. I think it is
good that my school is trying design thinking. From my experience, design thinking is very
powerful in getting our students to think differently. It makes them think a lot to come up with
new ideas.
While all participants approved integrating design thinking into project work and other
academic subjects like biology, the majority of them felt that design thinking was a “real”
challenge because of the profile of the students. Some participants commented that design
thinking could be more effectively introduced in top-achieving schools. One participant
explicitly said:
If design thinking is introduced in Raffles Institution, it will work wonders. The students there
are ‘high grade’ students. It will fit them well. Our school is so different but maybe the ‘higher
end’ classes should be involved rather than doing it [design thinking] with everyone in the
school.
These quotes and other comments (for example, “we are only a neighbourhood school”
and “our students are from the normal stream”) suggest that the teachers consider design
thinking more appropriate for students with high academic excellence. This conflicts with
some research that claims that design thinking can be applied across schools irrespective
of scholastic status (Razzouk & Shute, 2012). The teachers in this school were vocal
proponents of design thinking and this may suggest that they have thought that their
students are “not good enough” for this approach. Nevertheless, they acknowledged that
design thinking had the potential to nurture creative and critical thinking in their students.
This ambivalence may be a reflection of the realities faced by practising teachers
(with limited time and resources), in utilizing a system which places greater demands on
students, and hence on them as teachers, than more conventional methods. They felt that it
was not an easy task and some reasons for the difficulty surfaced during the interviews:
I gave my students very little [brief] information about the project and expected them to do the
research and come up with ideas and questions. Some questioned me and said that it is not the
same type of learning and wasted a lot of their time to search for information before they can
start the project.
Another teacher also expressed her concern:
Even though we have conducted seminar for the students on design thinking and have given
them a demonstration, they still prefer the old style of learning. Most of my students like
design thinking but they say that they cannot afford the time. They prefer to spend more time
on studying other subjects than researching and doing activities that is required in the process.
A specific concern that came up repeatedly throughout the interviews was the fear of
not getting good grades when using the design thinking approach. For example:
 8 K.S. Retna

Most of the students asked two main questions during the process: is this going to come out in
the examination? Is this important for examination? Their focus is learning for examination.
I have to assure them and tell them not to worry throughout the process. This mindset has to
change.
The participants’ concern seems legitimate in that teacher and students are concerned
with the final outcome that is the academic result, which is of top priority in Singapore.
This concern is prevalent in Singapore schools where results play an important role in
ranking the students and schools. According to participants, at that stage, they were not
able to make students see the connection between design thinking, learning and results.
Despite this fear and inhibitions, the majority of the participants claimed to have a
moderate success among students who employed design thinking in their project work.
Furthermore, they were positive and contended that the students have picked up skills such
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

as interviewing and analysing information from adopting the process. However, several of
the participants made the point that the process was excessively time-consuming and that
this affected students’ preparation for examinations. This conflict between the ideals of
“real education” and the demands of measurement (i.e., examinations) is a common one,
not confined to design thinking, or to Singapore. It can be argued that the realization of the
gap between what is espoused in design thinking process and what happens in practice can
enable teachers to let go of rigid teaching methods. In doing so, they realize one of the
challenges for students and themselves. Nevertheless, the tension between academic
results, as measured by examinations and the idea that design thinking is a time-
consuming process must be acknowledged. Singapore’s education system is well known
for its focus for “academic results” (Hogan, 2010, p. 2; Ng, 2008, p. 13). Any new
approach, such as design thinking, will be subject to the culture that strives to achieve high
examination results. It is interesting to note that participants recognize this constraint, yet
are motivated to experiment and learn new pedagogy for enhancing student learning.
It also raises the issue of whether the examinations themselves need to be reformed so that
they more accurately measure the outputs the new pedagogies are trying to achieve.
Altogether, it is not merely a matter of modifying the process but also requires a major
shift in the thinking of teachers and stakeholders. Design thinking along with advanced
pedagogical ideas in general, also presents a challenge to education policy makers in
Singapore. The current system is examination-oriented and privileges the acquisition and
display of conventional information. Design thinking, with its emphasis on creativity,
is somewhat subversive in this context. Educational policy needs to address this
contradiction.

Integration of design thinking with course content

The literature shows that design thinking could be employed across disciplines and in
schools. Brown (2009, p. 37) claims that design thinking has become important, necessary
for continuous improvement and innovation, and is not for designers only. Design thinking
methods and processes can also be applicable to managing change (Dunne & Martin,
2006; Liedtka, 2000). Some researchers (for example see, Bourdieu, Accardo, Balazs,
Beaud, & Bonvin, 1999) claim that design has a distinct way of thinking and practice and
can be transferred to any other professional domain. In this research, the question of how
design thinking was applied in teaching and learning was responded to with enthusiasm.
For example, a teacher explained that a project was given to the students whereby they
were required to solve a community issue related to elderly people. Students had to use the
five steps: empathy, define, ideate, prototype and test. As this was the first project that
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 9

involved the design thinking process, the participants were equally as excited as the
students. Despite such enthusiasm and excitement, two learning constraints were
consistently identified: student inexperience with real life problems and with research.
One teacher stated:
My secondary one students are not used to dealing with ‘real’ issues. They come from a
system of finding correct answers. So, when they had to go out to the community to speak to
people, they were afraid whether the answers they get from people are right or wrong.
Other participants described their experiences:
Doing research and getting a lot of information is part of the design thinking process.
My students did not know what is relevant because there is so much of information they find in
Google. Each time I meet the group they will ask me whether their information is right or
wrong for the project. A lot of time was required in coaching them.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Students are good at gathering information through various websites for their research. They
spent a lot of time but not sure about what is important or relevant for their project. Because of
this, I have to put in lots of time in guiding them.
While the teachers acknowledged the demands made by the students in facilitating the
process, most of the participants were empathetic by commenting that as students moved
from primary to secondary schools, it was difficult for them to shift from books to research
and interaction with people to learn about the needs of the community. Furthermore, some
participants emphasized that though students struggled with some of the steps, they
appreciated the experience of understanding issues at a deeper level. A few of the
participants also stated that as a result of students’ exposure to the real world issues, they
were able to come up with various ideas and view the issue at hand from different
perspectives. This was further elaborated by a teacher:
I can see the change in my students. They showed empathy for people. This made them think
more and more for ideas that can meet people’s needs.
The comments on students discomfort with brain-storming were also relevant:
They dislike thinking, brainstorming or going back and forth about ideas. Sometimes,
they could not think of anything. Worse still, they come up with the same set of solutions
that they have come up with earlier. This is a challenge I think for teachers who use design
thinking.
Two themes emerged. On the one hand, the findings point towards the development of
creative ideas, confidence and empathy for end users. This aligns with some studies (for
example, Brown, 2008) that suggest the design thinking process helps students to develop
creative ideas and confidence. Furthermore, design thinking is a humanistic approach and
its strength lies in understanding the end users’ needs (Martin, 2009). On the other hand,
findings showed the difficulties teachers undergo to nurture a culture of creative thinking
in a school. This cannot be achieved solely by a design thinking approach. It appears that
participants are using the stages as prescribed or taught during their training on design
thinking but they need to go beyond that mechanical application. It is essential for
educators to create activities that teach or promote the fundamental mindset for creative
thinking.
Another feature of the design thinking process that teachers’ perceived to be very
useful is prototyping. Prototyping is a process where one gets an opportunity to convey an
idea through simple models, sketches or cardboards. The majority of the participants
indicated that prototyping has been very well-received by students as it allowed them to
experiment and fail at an early stage and then recover from that. The realization that they
 10 K.S. Retna

will not be punished if the prototype did not turn out as expected acts as a form of
encouragement to further improve and learn from the mistakes. According to some
teachers prototyping is a good way to expose students to experimentation. For example:
It is fun and interesting for my students. They do mistakes but they don’t worry. They are not
scared if they fail. In prototyping they become confident about the project and the solutions
and look forward to test it out.
Students thought design thinking is pretty fun. They like the interaction and chit-chats during
prototyping. They feel excited in testing it out.
Overall, based on the interpretations, it can be assumed that the practice of design
thinking involves a major shift in the teaching and learning process and it poses challenges
for teachers during its implementation.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Challenges perceived by teachers

Introducing a new model, concept or approach to educational practice raises issues that
affect teachers, students and all stakeholders who contribute to teaching and learning in
schools. In this research, several challenges were identified. First, changing the mindset
of students was considered to be the most difficult challenge among the majority of
participants. This is because there is a difference between design thinking and the
traditional approach of teaching and learning. Participants expressed their views as
follows:
Currently our students expect us to know everything and have answers to questions. At each
stage, they want straight-forward answers. They are used to depending on teachers for
answers. But the design thinking process wants them to think and come up with an answer.
Design thinking is an experimental approach. It is a way of approach allowing students to
explore new things on their own. This is difficult for our students because they are used to
getting the right answer from teacher.
Design thinking requires students to think and consider a problem from different
perspectives. Also, in design thinking there are no right or wrong answers but a solution
that meets the users’ needs. It was evident from the findings that the traditional mindset of
students put a demand on teachers to drive the process of design thinking.
Second, another challenge faced by participants is the issue of team work among
students. Fostering collaboration is an essential part of the process. However, several
participants were concerned that students were not being able to collaborate and work as a
team. The general feeling among the teachers was captured by a teacher:
The biggest challenge was for them to work with people whom they do not know. This is
particularly true for secondary one [first year] students. When they get members whom they
don’t like, they complain and we have to do a lot of de-conflicting. It is not the actual work
itself but de-conflicting that makes the whole thing difficult for students to move on.
This quote shows the importance of team dynamics and the problems associated in
handling members working as a team. The conflict among students could be understood
from the point that the students in the first year of secondary education are new to the
school, classmates and school culture. In effect, they are in a transition from primary to
secondary education. Though some teachers empathized with the situation, they claimed
that design thinking seeks to promote collaborative and cooperative behaviour and skills
and therefore it is important for students to understand the value of teamwork.
Third, the issue of class size was another point of challenge for the participants. Class
size is an important indicator for teaching and learning effectiveness. Several researches
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 11

assert that a small size classroom is effective for promoting interactive learning. The size
in the school is 40 students with two teachers. Most of the participants found two teachers
insufficient and argued for more staff. As explained by a participant:
It would be good if we can have four teachers so that the groups can be broken down to 10.
It will be so much easier to facilitate. It will allow us to be a good guide and facilitator at
individual and group level. But now with manpower shortage it would be pretty hard but the
perfect scenario for students to learn the process properly would be four teachers in a class.
The above quote and comments such as “design thinking is a guided process”, “it is
very student oriented”, “a process that needs close supervision”, and “students need more
guidance and feedback” indicate that classroom size matters, especially when it differs
from the traditional method of doing project work. Most of participants strongly felt that
more resources (teachers) must be involved if design thinking is to be effectively
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

integrated into their daily teaching practices.

Fourth, all participants claimed that design thinking was not possible or useful across
all subjects and disciplines. Some participants expressed that from their own and other
teachers’ experiences, design thinking to some extent has proven to be useful for project
work, design and technology and co-curricular activities projects. Others reported that
they had used it in only one topic (e.g., in biology or geography). In contrast, two other
participants said that they had tried but could not apply the approach of design thinking.
For example:
I teach Maths. It is very difficult to use design thinking. In Maths – A plus A is just 2A. There
is nothing about design thinking that changes that. I am not forced to do it but encouraged to
think and try design thinking in my subject [Mathematics].
Given this reaction to the application of design thinking, on one hand we find mixed
messages and feelings as “good technique”, “good for problem solving”, “useful to
generate great ideas”, and on the another hand we find, “it is only for some subjects”,
“of limited use for certain subjects”, and “difficult to change the whole curriculum”. This
suggests that participants were receptive to the design thinking process and understand its
benefits but strongly felt that the integration of design thinking into the entire curriculum
was near impossible.
The final challenge that emerged in this research was the physical resources in terms of
a room that is conducive for the design thinking process. It was clear from the findings that
a room was allocated specifically for design thinking in the initial stage of implementation.
However, in the following year this room was not available because of shortage of rooms
for other teaching purposes. Most of the participants felt that it would be good to have
facilities and resources that promote learning. This is summarized in the following
statements:
We need a room like the one we saw when we attended our training in Stanford. The design
thinking rooms they have and the resources, equipment does create the kind of environment
we need for design thinking. After we came back we all became excited and was hoping to
have a room like that. Until now we have not materialized it.
We do have a room for design thinking – a project room. But it is hard to do project work for
students like the way we saw in Stanford. The school must provide proper facilities to teachers
and students to do design thinking like the way they do in Stanford.
The above quotes and other discussions on resources suggest that participants were
disappointed that they could not have facilities similar to those available in Stanford. They
were impressed by the facility and expected something similar in the school. One
participant commented that “there was no budget constraint” and expressed their hope for
 12 K.S. Retna

an improved version of the current classroom in future. This signals the importance of
providing a conducive environment for adopting design thinking process. However, a
point to note is that design thinking originates from designers and they perform their work
in studios. Thus, ideas on modification of facilities need to be carefully considered.

Conclusion
Design thinking is a process that promotes teaching and learning of important skills that
are required for the twenty-first century. Although the principles of design thinking have
been recognized in the educational context, teachers’ experience and perspectives in
implementing design thinking has been overlooked. To address this issue, this paper aimed
at understanding the perceptions of teachers of design thinking and its benefits. This paper
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

found that most participants considered design thinking to be a “unique” and “different”
approach relative to traditional teaching methods. The need to develop empathy as a key
skill in design thinking resonated with both teachers and students. Participants perceived
the implementation of design thinking to be very advanced for most students, and believed
that it would work best in top-achieving schools. They often found their students lacked
the necessary experience to engage with the real life problems posed by design thinking,
and that a culture of creative thinking needed to be nurtured. To this end, they found the
prototyping aspect of design thinking was well-received by students as it allowed them to
experiment and fail at an early stage, and thus learn from recoverable mistakes.
This paper also examined the challenges of implementing design thinking in a school
and the complexity of its practice. It found that the most significant challenge was
students’ reluctance to change their mindsets to the new way of thinking. As Singaporean
schools and their students are highly geared toward maximizing examination results,
participants struggled to convince their students that design thinking, with its creative
emphasis, would not distract from the traditional focus on acquiring the information
needed to gain good grades. Indeed, despite being proponents of design thinking,
participants often found it too time-consuming as it undermined students’ preparation for
their examinations. This study also found that the teamwork aspect of design thinking
posed another challenge for students, and that participants spent a lot of time “de-
conflicting”. Another challenge reported by participants was an insufficient teacher-to-
student ratio in implementing what is an intensive, guided process, and thus they argued
for more resourcing in the form of teachers. Furthermore, it was also found that design
thinking was not considered by participants to be universally applicable to all aspects of
the curriculum, and that participants felt the need for more physical resources in the form
of rooms that were conducive to the design thinking process.
This paper concludes that to implement design thinking, and to realize the benefits it
can bring, education policy makers must give thorough consideration to curriculum
redesign and the modification of the process according to subjects and disciplines. It is
important to fully understand how design thinking can benefit students and how the
integration of design thinking into various subjects can help students develop thinking
skills for the future. But for this to happen, adequate resources must be provided and that
includes time for teachers and students to develop the appropriate mindset needed for
design thinking. The findings of this study could be beneficial to those schools that are
implementing design thinking or proposing to do so. The study adds to both the literature
on design thinking and that of educational management. The paper therefore concludes
that transporting a concept from the field of design to education calls for a radical change,
not only in curricula and pedagogy but also through a major shift in the modes of thinking
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 13

and behaviour of teachers and students and this has resource implications which must be
addressed. The cultural context of the educational system must be also considered
in the implementation. The principles of design thinking offer considerable benefits to an
education system seeking to equip students with the skills they need now and into
the future, but addressing the issues of implementation are crucial if these benefits are to be
realized.
The study has its limitations. Though it intended to include every teacher who was
involved in using design thinking in their subjects, this was not possible as the research
took place during the national examinations period (and thus only 80% of the teachers who
were involved participated). The study was exploratory and its purpose was to focus on
teachers’ perceptions and their challenges they faced in implementing design thinking.
Thus, the research does not claim to address the nuances of the design thinking process.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

Nevertheless, the study shows that design thinking could prove beneficial for students and
teachers taking into consideration the challenges discussed. Future research could focus on
students’ experiences of design thinking. Also, the research could expand to explore
teachers’ and students’ perceptions across various schools and compare national contexts.

References
Anderson, N. (2012). Design thinking: Employing an effective multidisciplinary pedagogical
framework to foster creativity and innovation in rural and remote education. Australian and
International Journal of Rural Education, 22(2), 43 – 52.
Argyris, C., & Schon, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Barseghian, E. (2010). Design thinking sparks learning in rural North Carolina. Retrieved from
http://blogs.kqed.org/mindshift/2010/11/design-thinking-sparks-learning-in-rural-n-carolina/
Bell, J. S. (2008). Design. American Libraries, 39(1/2), 44 – 49.
Brooks, F. P. (2010). The design of design-essays from a computer scientist. Boston, MA: Pearson
Education.
Brown, T. (2008). Design thinking. Harvard Business Review, 86(6), 84 – 92.
Brown, T. (2009). Change by design. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
Bourdieu, P., Accardo, A., Balazs, G., Beaud, S., & Bonvin, F. E. (1999). The weight of the world.
Cambridge, England: Polity Press.
Cassell, C., & Symon, G. (1994). Qualitative methods in organizational research: A practical guide.
London: Sage.
Clark, K., & Smith, R. (2008). Unleashing the power of design thinking. Design Management
Review, 19(3), 8 – 15.
Constas, M. A. (1992). Qualitative analysis as a public event: The documentation of category
development procedures. American Educational Research Journal, 2(2), 253– 266.
Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five traditions
(2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Denzin, N., & Lincoln, Y. (2000). Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage.
Dewey, J. (1910). How we think. Boston, MA: D.C Heath.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York, NY: Kappa Delta Pi.
Dunne, D., & Martin, R. (2006). Design thinking and how it will change management education: An
interview and discussion. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 5(4), 512– 523.
Easterby-Smith, M., Thorpe, R., & Jackson, P. R. (2007). Management research. London: Sage.
Eisenhardt, K. M. (1989). Building theories from case study research. Academy of Management
Review, 14(4), 532– 550.
Fraser, H. (2007). The practice of breakthrough strategies by design. Journal of Business Strategy,
28(4), 66 –74.
Gloppen, J. (2009). Perspectives on design leadership and design thinking and how they relate to
European service industries. Design Management Journal, 14(1), 33 – 35.
 14 K.S. Retna

Goldman, S., Knudsen, J., & Latvala, M. (1998). Engaging middle schoolers in and through real
world mathematics. In L. Leutzinger (Ed.), Mathematics in the middle (pp. 129– 140). Reston,
VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.
Goodwin, C. (1994). Professional vision. American anthropologist, 96(3), 606– 633.
Hogan, D. (2010, November 2). Current and future pedagogies in Singapore. Presentation at TE21
Summit, NIE, Singapore. Retrieved from http://www.nie.edu.sg/about-nie/teacher-education-21
Kafai, Y., & Resnick, M. (1996). Constructionism in practice: Design thinking, and learning in a
digital world. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kimbell, L. (2011). Manifesto for MBA in design better futures. In R. Cooper, S. Jungiginger, &
T. Lockwood (Eds.), Handbook of design management. Oxford: Berg.
King, N. (2004). Using templates in the thematic analysis of text. In C. Cassell & G. Symon (Eds.),
Essential guide to qualitative methods (2nd ed., pp. 118– 134). London: Sage.
Kolodner, J. L., Camp, P. J., Crismond, D., Fasse, B., Gray, J., Holbrook, J., & Ryan, M. (2003).
Promoting deep science learning through case-based reasoning: Rituals and practices in learning
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016

by design classrooms. In N. M. Steel (Ed.), Instructional design: International perspectives

(pp. 89 – 114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Krieger, M. (2010). Introduction to design thinking. Retrieved from http://www.slideshare.net/
mileyk/intro-to-design-thinking
Lawson, B. (2006). How designers think: The design process demystified (4th ed.). Amsterdam:
Elsevier.
Lee, K. (2011). Beyond blueprints and basics: A service design conference report. Design Issues,
27(4), 95 –100.
Liedtka, J. (2000). In defense of strategy as design. California Management Review, 42(3), 80.
Liedtka, J. (2011). Learning to use design thinking tools for successful innovation. Strategy &
Leadership, 39(5), 13 – 19.
Lockwood, T. (Ed.), (2009). Design thinking: Integrating innovation, customer experience, and
brand value. New York, NY: Design Management Institute/Allworth Press.
Luo, W., Luo, Z., Paris, S. G., & Hogan, D. (2011). Do performance goals promote learning? A
pattern analysis of Singapore students’ achievement goals. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 36(2), 165– 176.
Martin, R. L. (2009). The design of business: Why design thinking is the next competitive advantage.
Boston, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Martin, R. (2012). Design thinking: An interview with Martin Roger. Research Technology
Management, May– June (pp. 10 – 14).
McCullagh, K. (2010). Stepping up: Design thinking has uncovered real opportunities. Design
Management Review, (3), 36 – 39.
McDonagh, D., & Thomas, J. (2010). Rethinking design thinking: Empathy supporting innovation.
Australasian Medical Journal, 3(8), 458– 464.
Ng, P. T. (2008). Educational reform in Singapore: Quantity to quality. Educational Research for
Policy and Practice, 7(1), 5 – 15.
Parker, S., & Heapy, J. (2006). The journey to the interface: How public service design can connect
users to reform. London: Demos.
Philloton, E., & Miller, M. (2011). Design, build, transform. Retrieved from http://www.studio-h.
org/about
Pink, D. H. (2005). A whole new mind: Why right-brainers will rule the future. New York:
Riverhead.
Razzouk, R., & Shute, V. (2012). What is design thinking and why is it important? Review of
Educational Research, 82(3), 330–348. doi:10.3102/0034654312457429
Retna, K. S., & Ng, P. T. (2006). The challenges of adopting the learning organization philosophy in
a Singapore school. International Journal of Educational Management, 20(2), 140– 152.
Rittle, H. W., & Webber, M. M. (1973). Dilemmas in general theory of planning. Policy Sciences,
4(2), 155–169.
Scheer, A., Noweski, C., & Meinel, C. (2012). Transforming constructivist learning into action:
Design thinking in education. Design and Technology Education: An international Journal,
7(3), 819.
Simon, H. A. (1973). The structure of ill-defined problems. Artificial Intelligence, 4(3), 181– 201.
Simon, H. A. (1996). The sciences of the artificial (3rd ed.). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
Stake, R. E. (1995). The art of case study research. London: Sage.
 Asia Pacific Journal of Education 15

Stake, R. E. (2000). Case studies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative
research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Stegall, N. (2006). Designing for sustainability: A philosophy for ecologically intentional design.
Design Issues, 12(2), 56– 63.
Tan, C., & Wong, Y. (2012). Promoting spiritual ideals through design thinking in public schools.
International Journal of Children’s Spirituality, 17(1), 25 – 37.
Todd, R. (1999). Design and technology yields a new paradigm for elementary schooling. Journal of
Technology Studies, 25(2), 26– 33.
Verganti, R. (2009). Design-driven innovation: Changing the rules by radically innovating what
things mean. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Press.
Wong, Y. L. (2011). Developing opposable minds: Why design thinking should become an integral
part of the core curriculum in 21st century education. In W. Choy & C. Tan (Eds.), Education
reform in Singapore: Critical perspectives (pp. 127– 144). Singapore: Prentice Hall.
Downloaded by [Orta Dogu Teknik Universitesi] at 13:29 27 January 2016